Thursday, May 24, 2012

Budget 2012

I haven't got much to say about the budget, not when I'm busy weeping into my lace handkerchief while looking at monochrome pictures of Old Zealand, singing along to Streisand's Memories as the neighbours pound on the wall threatening the police on me.

If newspapers have taught me anything is that a) NZ has a relatively low level of public debt while having high private debt, mostly because of lower than average OECD wages paired with incredibly costly homes and the costly mortgages that go with them, and b) don't hold them in the crook of your arm or you'll get ink all over yourself and an octopus will want to mate with you.

The Government's response to the private/public debt scenario is to squeeze incomes of the working and middle classes limiting their abilities to pay back debt on top of reducing spending power within the economy. On top of this public spending has been radically paired back. The Government has instead said that this will be an investment lead recovery and they have facilitated this by reducing the amount of taxes paid by the top earners who will go on to invest this money into...shoes, shares in overseas companies, shares in flogged off state assets so it's now in the hands of a private minority instead of the public...? They will invest their money in the laughter of small children.

This is supply side economics. This is what Bush/Cheney implemented and what played a large part in turning a healthy economy into one which was on the verge of collapse. I have seen American journalists question Key over this, I have yet to see local media do so. Instead they've let Key get away with comparing himself to Obama. This notion may have caused your head to explode. I apologise.

The budget lets us feel better because it cuts funding from areas that we have no real understanding of (research institutes?? who cares, amirite?), stinky smokers, and they get to have the media say that they're Getting Tough on the Rich because of some token loophole tightening for people hiring out their private planes so that they'll only get half a rebate back now. They also punched a couple of kids in the gut and ran away with their newspaper money, but hey, all this is distraction from the Big Picture which nobody seems to be willing to tackle.

Key might not be Bush as far as religious dogma is concerned, but he certainly is as far as economic dogma. I'm not wishing to be a fear monger, or an alarmist, but I have just eaten my cats and am typing this from a bomb shelter. Lets not panic, but we're all doomed. On the bright side Key was interviewed from his home in Hawaii and is said to be 'quite relaxed, actually'.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Immigration: Scary For Racist Idiots

Why do we have immigration in New Zealand?*

What is our immigration policy? Why is that our policy? What is a New Zealander? Does that concept even exist outside of pop culture? Should there be a common language or does it matter if there isn't?

I'm absolutely sick to death of the current level of discussions revolving around immigration. It is couched in nothing but emotive language. "The proliferation of non-English signs in Auckland is making some Kiwis uncomfortable", a study showed. This inevitably lead to comment sections where grotty little xenophobic barbs were thrown in along with "You're uncomfortable? You must be stupid and the head of the Klan!".

When I was born Auckland had around 750,000 people. Now it has 1.5 million, mostly due to immigration. One in three people are born overseas. That's a massive change in a fairly short time period. Some people are uncomfortable? Holy crap, no wonder. Don't forget, some people are wired differently - did you know that conservatives tend to have a larger fear centre in their brains? Don't you think rapid change might scare them? Don't you think that by not talking about this other than throwing around retorts about racism etc, that this fear induced ignorance will never be allayed which can turn to anger, and then eventually leads them down to the rocky path of being a NZ Herald/radio talk back commentator?

If you don't engage with people, if you don't actually listen and respond to what they're saying (and I don't mean the Crimps of this world, the only engagement with them should be a strong sedative and a quiet room) then their mindset can never change because you're not offering them facts to counter emotions. You want to win an arguement, bring more than putdowns to the table (I find a gun helps).

You know what media can and should do (or politicians for that matter, but there's too much interest in some parts in keeping voters scared), is to start answering the simple foundational questions above and then build on it. Actually set down WHY people are nervous or worried about this issue and then address this - what does research say, what have been the experiences of other countries such as Canada trotting down the path of multiculturalism, what have been the mistakes and the successes and what could we incorporate, what should the population level be? Should we be offering further English language help or is there no need, should there be mandatory classes in schools on learning about other cultures (that one seems a no-brainer), should learning a second language be strongly encouraged, should every citizen be forced to watch rugby while eating bbq food smothered in watties tomato sauce, when do we gently break it to newcomers that sheep love is mandatory?

More facts, less gut reactions.

*In 2050 the answer will be 'so we can replace the entire population which has migrated to Australia'.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Dear Target....

Dear Target,

I paid a tradesman to masturbate in my house and all he did was clean my carpets, and not even in a nudge, nudge kind of way. He literally came in and cleaned the carpets in my house! What the hell!

I think you'll agree that this is both shocking and unprofessional. So shocking in fact that an entire 20 minutes of the show must be dedicated to this where we get blow-by-blow (ha!) details on what the blurry face rascal is up to, as breathing heavily he lugs around a steam cleaner around the thirty-five laundry baskets brimming with worn underwear which he continues to blatently ignore. Dis-gusting.

In good conscious you must show every minute detail as to what occurs. Not because it's sensationalist, but because it acts as a public warning not to leave tradespeople alone in your house should they suddenly run amok cleaning things instead of masturbating furiously about the place. Sure, you could spend a couple of minutes watching him clean the carpets, but unless we watch him steam clean (shocking! unprofessional!) the entire lounge we'll never understand the full heinousness of his actions.

In my day you'd pay a tradesperson to masturbate in your house, they'd turn up, masturbate away, and all was as it should be. Nowadays you turn your back and your carpets are freshly washed. It's a perverted world we live in and we need shows like yours to make us aware. Not for ratings sake, but for the sake of our children who will one day wish to hire masturbating tradesman of their own.

Yours
A Concerned Citizen



Monday, May 14, 2012

Key vs The Media

Hi, I'm John Key and I'd like to talk to the Mums and Dads of New Zealand directly.

Look, while I'm completely relaxed about the media in New Zealand I'm also feel I need to talk plainly here.

The media, for some reason, hates me. And Mums and Dads of New Zealand, I'm not bent out of shape about this at all, but it should be said the the media is something you shouldn't trust. It's hostile and it's aggressive. I think we can all agree that this isn't in the style of what New Zealanders are all about. As Mums and Dads you'll know and appreciate this. I think we're all on the same side here. The side that the media isn't.

You can't trust the media but you can trust me. You might see them asking questions, which I'm completely relaxed and comfortable about. But after I've answered them, they're asking more questions. They used to leave issues alone and now they're not. I'm not saying I'm being victimised here, because really, that's up to the media as to how they do their job, and I'm in a five-day coma I'm just that relaxed, but victimisation. That's a word I'm randomly throwing out there.

Nobody likes a bully. Especially since I'm such a nice guy.

Sunday Star-Time and New Zealand Herald. I'm not saying you shouldn't read them. But hostile and aggressive. And to me, of all people. Maybe you should support me, Mums and Dads, and not read them, though obviously I don't care if you do. A tabloid though, can you really expect the truth from that? Over someone like me?

Obviously I don't care, but that is an absolute statement of fact that the media is biased against me and can't be trusted.

I'd like to briefly do a shout-out to Guyon Espinor. Such a nice guy with nice questions. Thanks Guyon, you served me well.

Some might say that I'm a relaxed and nice guy. Some might say that you can't believe the media if they say negative things about me. Obviously I wouldn't say that. But it's out there.

And I'll leave it up to you, Mums and Dads, which side you are on.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Family Second: Marriage Should be Abolished

Marriage Should Be Abolished




MEDIA RELEASE
11 May 2012

Marriage Should Be Abolished
Statement by Rob McCoskrie – National Director of Family Second NZ

Lots of cultures have had marriages. If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for those children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed, because seriously who would stay married unless it was under an obligation for kids. Sure, people talk about love, but we argue that the one in seven people who are infertile, those who do not wish to have children, and those people whose children are older and have left home should have their marriages annulled since the reason behind it no longer exists. Furthermore men should abandon their wives as soon as menopause begins in order to trade her in for newer, more fertile, womb.


Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them, unlike de-facto or step relationships where parents routinely eat their children for sustenance. On average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system as evidenced by the fact that two incomes are being used to support them. As Prominent (so prominent as to be Prominent) Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn says, this is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution. An institution that we wish to limit to the point of abolishing it.



It is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. For instance, marriage used to be unavailable to people from different races. We long for those days past. A homosexual cannot now legally marry But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. Two old aunties living together cannot marry. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage - the list is endless. A stapler can not marry a pair of scissors. A goat can not marry the colour blue. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place. The civil rights movement, women wanting to vote, what on earth were they complaining about?

What I'm saying is that marriage is a slippery slope. If you have marriage you can end up with cats marrying dogs, and children marrying their parents. This is an indisputable fact. Marriage is dangerous and can lead to the breakdown of society. This is why I am calling for the end to marriage as an institution before society breaks out into a mass orgy of incestuous pedophilia.


Gays can get married. But they don’t want to. And that is their right. Except Gay people who do want to get married. Which is why I'm writing this press release. Otherwise I wouldn't need to.


It is also important to note that marriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Natural marriage as defined by me. Auburn hair only occurs in small percentage of the population. That is not natural. They also shall not marry.


If the law were to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), or incestuous (adult) unions – if all that counts is love and commitment. There is nothing, after all, more loving than a poly incestuous relationship and the only thing that is stopping society from heading down that road is legislation.


As Phil Goff argued at our 2011 Forum on the Family conference, same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage. There may be some gay people who want to get married, but personally, I don't see the need, so they must not.

Supporters of same sex marriage argue that civil unions are a 2nd-class type of marriage. But there are many same-sex advocates who argue against ‘marriage’ for same sex couples, and even suggest that the claim is hurtful to those who have deliberately chosen civil unions. Many, many nameless same-sex advocates. The gay community in fact demands that marriage is not extended and I believe it is wrong that this is enforced on them.


Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron because the meanings of words never change. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone because that would be equal and therefore an oxymoron.


Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not ‘anti-gay’, it's just pro-polyincestuouspedo because that is what marriage inevitably leads to. If you allow a man and a woman to marry who knows what kind of depravity could occur. I think about this depravity a lot.


People do have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine words because words are more important than people.


The state - which did not invent marriage - has no authority to re-invent it. The state therefore does no have the power to acknowledge your marriage certificate so everyone is now officially single.

ENDS

Family First Press Release: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1205/S00183/marriage-should-not-be-redefined.htm

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The Return of Colin Craig

Please note: this is satire and for amusement purposes only. Colin Craig did not say this, and the link to the original post is below. I point this out for the incredibly thick since Mr Craig has started threatening legal action on people because he apparently, and I think a reasonable person might assume this, wants to silence his critics by using his money as a weapon.

Wake Up Mr Key


Press Release
10 May 2012

Wake Up Mr Key
In response to Mr Keys claims that Mr Craig was making up claims about promiscuity, Mr Craig responds as follows:

"My claim that New Zealand women are whores was true and I have evidence to back this up in the form of a paid internet poll that has produced such scientific evidence as a "World's Best Lover" list published in such peer reviewed journals as the Daily Mail. Shocking stuff.
 
Also, the International Sexuality Description Project which out of 14,059 people surveyed sampled 152 New Zealand women who self-reported about attitudes to sex.  Damning stuff. I haven't read it, but it's sure to be prove my point. One hundred scientists cooperated on this. That's some solid evidence, right there.
 
More importantly, I have talked to frontline health workers, doctors, and Gynaecologists. I say "Hey, tell me about the sex lives of women. This is for science. Now tell it to me slower and into this tape recorder so I can play it back at a later date. For science".
 
These people I've talked with: none of them told me I was wrong. Therefore, scientifically, I must be right. Furthermore, and brace yourself for this, I haven't read anything that counters my preconceived notions about the sluttiness (so slutty!) of New Zealand women. Bam! You weren't expect that. There it is. Facts.
 
But it isn't just New Zealand women who are whores, so ladies, stop your whinning that I'm being sexist. New Zealand men are also dirty, filthy sinners. And these dirty slutty women are doing dirty slutty things with these men. Or possibly with each other. I know right-thinking New Zealanders can't get these disturbing notions out of their heads.
 
I'm young and hip and know what the young people are up to. And it's having premarital sex without the sole purpose of procreation. They're doing it for enjoyment. Disgusting.
 
As politicians it's our job to stop this. But also to be aware of this. I may have to do more research and ask more gynacologists about womens sex lives."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1205/S00169/wake-up-mr-key.htm

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

New Zealand Women are Dirty Whores

Please note: this is satire and for amusement purposes only. Colin Craig did not say this, and the link to the original post is below. I point this out for the incredibly thick since Mr Craig has started threatening legal action on people because he apparently, and I think a reasonable person might assume this, wants to silence his critics by using his money as a weapon.

Hi, I'm Colin Craig, leader of the NZ Conservative Party and I've come to talk to you on a pressing issue, that of the legions of lady whores that blight this God fearing country.

First of all, forget 100% Pure. We should rename our advertising slogan 100% Whores of Babylon. New Zealand has the most promiscuous young women in the world, a fact that I may or may not have made up right now. This slutfest not of course including my dear mother, or wife, or my daughter, or the ladies at my church. But those other women, out there, dirty, dirty whores, the lot of them. And I've done enough research on the internet to know.

These women that sleep around, why should the taxpayer provide free contraception for them? If God wishes to strike them down with a STD or gift them with children, that's between them and the Good Lord. Likewise supporting those children, also between them and the Lord. I'm sure the Salvation Army would be happy to help them out, should they repent. Children are a gift from God. But don't expect me to pay for them as a taxpayer. Hey, the gift wasn't delivered to me.

If a dirty promiscuous whore wants to fund their own devil contraceptions, that's one thing. But why should a pious God fearing woman in her 70's fund some good time girl's base baby blockers? Did I mention that we're doing away with superannuation and implementing a work until you die scheme? Well I am. Idle hands are the devil's hands.

People shouldn't be funding other people's lifestyle choices. Like choosing to be overweight, or smoke, or work in sedentary jobs, or live a modern lifestyle exposing yourself to potential health risks and requiring hospital treatment. This is lunacy! Instead hospitals will be replaced with prayer clinics where faith will cure the deserving. Education? A lifestyle choice. Why are we funding this when the bible has all the knowledge a person needs.

Research has clearly pointed out who are the promiscuous sluts are in this society and a little bit of social damnation goes a long way.

Proof: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10781228

Monday, May 7, 2012

Stop Breeding, Poor People!

National are going to be providing free birth control for beneficiaries. Sorry, did I say beneficiaries, I meant female beneficiaries and their daughters.Why is it being limited to only one gender? National haven't said. I can only assume it's because contraception hasn't been invented for men. OH WAIT A MINUTE, it has! There are condoms, and reversible vasectomies, and case workers hired to turn up once a week to deliver a stern kick to the testicles, though I think that last one has been outlawed.

So why are we targeting women? Because women are sneaky and conniving and know that the key to the good life of extravagant benefits and access to state housing is by having Benefit Babies. Birthing them in the queue to pick up a benefit cheque, watching the cash roll in. This is also being targeted at teen and youths even though statistics show that this has been naturally declining any way. However, while this may be the case our teen pregnancy rates are still high by OECD standards.Plus teenagers are annoying and nobody really likes them.

The other question is why are we solely targeting beneficiaries? Community cards already mean that the pill and condoms are cheaply available to those earning under a certain amount. Surely ready access to the full spectrum of contraceptives for both genders is in everyone's best interest, so that children are hopefully born into households that are somewhat prepared for them. Is this not just a cynical political move to bolster approval from it's base by targeting a maligned group and taking the focus off Banks, asset sales and National's mandatory kitten killing programme?

We're doing this because we're scared of The Poor. Because the old Sallies jingle "we're all in this together (except if you're gay because we're a homophobic organisation)" went by the roadside a long time ago. There's a recession and it's Them vs Us, and beneficiaries aren't a part of society, they're a burden on it, off on the fringes, taking tax money away in order to raise their sub-standard children who will go on to steal our cars and breed more, like out of control car stealing rabbits. That is the thinking that's behind this. We're back to the days of eugenics all over again. This isn't about providing choice, this is about providing a way for society to stop the poor from having children because the amount of money you have equates to your worth as a human being. Why else do we celebrate complete arseholes whose only redeeming feature is that they're rich?

Look, having a kid while on a benefit is not the best life choice. It make life harder for the parents, it makes life harder for any children who are already there. So the chance of easily accessible and affordable contraception is great. The wording of this though, the way it's being implemented...it just feels like another step towards New Zealand being more divisive and increasingly wary and distrustful of each other.

Maybe National should rethink their 'Stopping Slutty Solo Moms Slinging out Baby Benefit Bludgers' slogan? Also if they keep talking about how this is about pushing people into work maybe they should stop making people redundant and actually help create some freckin jobs. Just saying.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Educating National

We all have differing views about the role that Government is meant to play in society. My personal opinion is that at the bare minimum it is there to make sure that education and health services are provided as a public good - you can't, after all, have a thriving country if its population isn't educated and healthy.

However, National apparently doesn't share that view. In its one and a bit terms in parliament it has limited places within tertiary education (and not only that, did so during a recession when the number of jobs available decreased), has ended universal student membership thereby putting student services in danger, and has linked a percentage of funding to course completion rates (on institutions now, and potentially on the teachers themselves in future), which potentially puts pressure on institutions to dumb down courses or to pass individuals that may not be deserving.

Then there's charter schools. Research indicates they can sometimes work well with the proviso that they are set up in affluent areas. Where are we going to be placing them? In low-socio economic areas, the government casting off the children of the poor and letting private interests shape their educations and their futures. History repeats, we've done this already back in our dark dim past where church groups formed schools that were little more than thinly veiled places for training servants. Maybe we're resurrecting this after the success of Downton Abbey?

The latest insult to injury is of course student allowances and loans. The well off do not have access to allowances (unless they have a good accountant on hand) and do not have need of loans. Loans are instead there to enable the children of middle and working class families the opportunity to attend further education on a buy now, pay later basis. Many of these students are going to graduate into entry level jobs in a workforce where jobs are no longer plentiful and where our minimum wage is pitiful. They're going to also enter a housing market where house prices and rents are crippling high - some of the highest in the world in relation to income. Now that National is going to be raising the repayment threshold on loans, essentially bolstering revenue lost when they gave tax cuts to the rich, there is going to be even less money to not only for them to survive on, but also to spend within the local economy. Plus even with interest on loans it may be more economical to find work overseas so we can wave goodbye to three plus years of investment. Everyone potentially loses.

The rhetoric from National is telling. Education has become strictly about the money. Key talks about changes to education as about getting better value for taxpayers. We do get value, by dint of the fact that we get educated people out of it. It's about investing in our fellow citizens for the betterment of all, but with such a narrow focus on neo-liberal ideas of the individual in fashion I suppose that would almost sound like communism these days.

John Key got where he is today in part because a society invested in his family by providing state housing, a benefit, and a free education, no loans attached. I have nothing but contempt for politicians that wish to dismantle the very institutions that allowed them to succeed. It's nothing more than shameful.